AbelmannC.ElmoreR.EvenJ.KenyonS.MarshallJ. (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer?(RR-42). Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
2.
AndersonG. L.CohenM. I. (2018). The new democratic professional in education: Confronting markets, metrics, and managerialism. Teachers College Press.
3.
AppleM. (1985). Teaching and “women’s work”: A comparative historical and ideological analysis. Teachers College Record, 86(3), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146818508600306
4.
AronsonB.MurphyK.SaultzA. (2016). Under pressure in Atlanta: School accountability and special education practices during the cheating scandal. Teachers College Record, 118(14), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611801411
5.
AuW. (2011). Teaching under the new Taylorism: High–stakes testing and the standardization of the 21st century curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2010.521261
6.
AuW. (2016). Meritocracy 2.0: High-stakes, standardized testing as a racial project of neoliberal multiculturalism. Educational Policy, 30(1), 39–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815614916
7.
BraunH.ChapmanL.VezzuS. (2010). The Black-White achievement gap revisited. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18(21). http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/772).
8.
BroadbentJ.DietrichM.LaughlinR. (1996). The development of principal–agent, contracting and accountability relationships in the public sector: Conceptual and cultural problems. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7(3), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1006/cpac.1996.0033
9.
CamachoD. A.VeraE.ScardamaliaK.PhalenP. L. (2018). What are urban teachers thinking and feeling?Psychology in the Schools, 55(9), 1133–1150. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22176
10.
CarnoyM.ElmoreR.SiskinL. eds. (2003). The new accountability: High schools and high-stakes testing. Routledge.
11.
ChildressS.ElmoreR. F.GrossmanA. (2006). How to manage urban school districts. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 55–68. https://hbr.org/2006/11/how-to-manage-urban-school-districts
12.
ConwellJ. A.Ispa-LandaS. (2020). Principals in urban schools under pressure: Relations with parents in the era of test-based accountability. Urban Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920937764
13.
CrowG. M.ScribnerS. P. (2013). Professional identities of urban school principals. In Handbook of urban education (pp. 325–342). Routledge.
Darling-HammondL. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No Child Left Behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320701503207
16.
DayC.GuQ. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33(4), 423–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054980701450746
17.
DeweyJ. (1966). Democracy and education. Free Press.
18.
DiamondJ. B. (2012). Accountability policy, school organization, and classroom practice: Partial recoupling and educational opportunity. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 151–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431569
19.
DoughertyS. M.WeinerJ. M. (2019). The Rhode to turnaround: The impact of waivers to no Child Left Behind on school performance. Educational Policy, 33(4), 555–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817719520
20.
EbrahimA. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764004269430
GarcíaE.WeissE. (2020). COVID-19 and student performance, equity, and US education policy: Lessons from pre-pandemic research to inform relief, recovery, and rebuilding. Economic Policy Institute. https://www.epi.org/publication/the-consequences-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-for-education-performance-and-equity-in-the-united-states-what-can-we-learn-from-pre-pandemic-research-to-inform-relief-recovery-and-rebuilding/
25.
GarnG. (2001). Moving from bureaucratic to market accountability: The problem of imperfect information. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(4), 571–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610121969424
HarrisD. M. (2012). Postscript: Urban schools, accountability, and equity: Insights regarding NCLB and reform. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124511431571
28.
HigginsM.DobrowS. R.WeinerJ. M.LiuH. (2020). When is psychological safety helpful? A longitudinal study. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(1), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2018.0242
29.
Hinnant-CrawfordB. N. (2019). Legislating instruction in urban schools: Unintended consequences of accountability policy on teacher-reported classroom goal structures. Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919838004
30.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard university press.
31.
HornI. S. (2018). Accountability as a design for teacher learning: Sensemaking about mathematics and equity in the NCLB era. Urban Education, 53(3), 382–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916646625
32.
HorsfordS. D.Vasquez HeiligJ. (2014). Community-based education reform in urban contexts: Implications for leadership, policy, and accountability. Urban Education, 49(8), 867–870. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914557647
33.
JacobB. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5-6), 761–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.004
34.
JenningsJ.SohnH. (2014). Measure for measure: how proficiency-based accountability systems affect inequality in academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 87(2), 125–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714525787
35.
KoyamaJ. (2014). Principals as bricoleurs: Making sense and making do in an era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(2), 279–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13492796
36.
LeeJ.ReevesT. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources: state NAEP 1990–2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711431604
37.
LightfootD. (2004). “Some parents just don’t care” decoding the meanings of parental involvement in urban schools. Urban Education, 39(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085903259290
38.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russel Sage Foundation.
39.
LomoteyK. (2019). Research on the leadership of Black women principals: Implications for Black students. Educational Researcher, 48(6), 336–348. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X19858619
40.
LouisK. S.KhalifaM. (2018). Understanding and improving urban secondary schools: The role of individual and collective agency. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(5), 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2018-174
MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (2021). Introduction. In MilnerH. R.LomoteyK. (Eds.), Handbook of urban education (pp. 1–6). Routledge.
44.
NetolickyD. M. (2020). School leadership during a pandemic: Navigating tensions. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 5(3/4), 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-05-2020-0017
45.
NicholsS. L.BerlinerD. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Harvard Education Press.
PayneC. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Harvard Education Press.
49.
PazeyB. L.DeMatthewsD. (2016). Student voice from a turnaround urban high school: An account of students with and without dis/abilities leading resistance against accountability reform. Urban Education, 54(7), 919–956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916666930
50.
PeckC.ReitzugU. C. (2012). How existing business management concepts become school leadership fashions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(2), 347–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11432924
51.
PiazzaP. (2017). Neo-democracy in educational policy-making: A critical case study of neoliberal reform in Massachusetts. Journal of Education Policy, 32(2), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2016.1258592
52.
PortzJ. (2021). “Next-Generation” accountability? Evidence from three school districts. Urban Education, 56(8), 1297–1327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917741727
53.
QuickP. M.NormoreA. H. (2004, December). Moral leadership in the 21st century: Everyone is watching—especially the students. In The educational forum (pp. 336–347). Taylor & Francis Group.
54.
ReedL. C.SwaminathanR. (2016). An urban school leader’s approach to school improvement: Toward contextually responsive leadership. Urban Education, 51(9), 1096–1125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085914553675
55.
Rivera-McCutchenR. L. (2021). “We don’t got time for grumbling”: Toward an ethic of radical care in urban school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(2), 257–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20925892
56.
RobinsonV.TimperleyH. (2000). The link between accountability and improvement: The case of reporting to parents. Peabody Journal of Education, 75(4), 66–89. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327930PJE7504_4
57.
Rolón-DowR. (2005). Critical care: A color(full) analysis of care narratives in the schooling experiences of Puerto Rican girls. American Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 77–111. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042001077
58.
RooneyE. (2015). “I’m just going through the motions”: High-stakes accountability and teachers’ access to intrinsic rewards. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 475–500. https://doi.org/10.1086/681923
59.
SeidmanI. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. Teachers College Press.
60.
SergiovanniJ. T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement. Jossey-Bass.
TetlockP. E.MellersB. A. (2011). Structuring accountability systems in organizations: Key trade-offs and critical unknowns. In National Research Council (Ed.),Intelligence analysis: Behavioral and social scientific foundations.
65.
TetlockP. E.VieiderF. M.PatilS. V.GrantA. M. (2013). Accountability and ideology: When left looks right and right looks left. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.03.007
66.
TheoharisG. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06293717
67.
ValenzuelaA. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. State University of New York Press.
68.
ValliL.BueseD. (2007). The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 519–558. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306859
WangD.WaldmanD. A.AshforthB. E. (2019). Building relationships through accountability: An expanded idea of accountability. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(2–3), 184–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386619878876
WeinerJ. M.HigginsM. C. (2017). Where the two shall meet: Exploring the relationship between teacher professional culture and student learning culture. Journal of Educational Change, 18(1), 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9292-6
73.
WelshR. O.SwainW. A. (2020). (Re)defining urban education: A conceptual review and empirical exploration of the definition of urban education. Educational Researcher, 49(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20902822
74.
WilliamsH. W. (2008). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals. The Journal of Management Development, 27(1), 36. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710810840758